Common Armour Values System

[SPQR 0]

SPQR - if you are still watching this topic (and I hope you are) - where have you drawn your CE/HEAT indirect damage/range formulas from?

One concern I have is whether the AI has the ability to recognise that a HE-FRAG round it has available is a better choice to use against infantry or soft targets rather than a HEAT round with a very focused shaped charge? If the AI can't figure this out, and believes that HEAT = HE then the way we are designing HEAT rounds will unrealistically reduce tank effectiveness against soft targets.

My "CE/HEAT indirect damage/range formuleas " are empirical. As a matter of fact, antipersonnel effects and range form HEAT rounds are rather harder, if not impossible, to find. I just know some real facts :

- HEAT rounds act as dart, though directed explosion/propulsion of a metallic plate. Truly, the effects are rather similar as those from AP rounds. Both ammo is being "eaten" by the armor while going through.

- Except Multipurpose rounds, the HEAT round have thus a low effective antipersonnel effect (few fragments, reduced shockwave), and surely not an antivehicle effect as OFP's Sabot & HEAT rounds.

So, HEAT rounds should have :

- an adapted antipersonnel capacity (just enough to kill or injury infantry) : low indirect damage

- a reduced antipersonnel range, thus low indirect damage range

Here are some pics from a tank gunnery manual, showing visual aspects of different shells impacts :

APFSDS

HEAT (not MP in this case)

HE

About AI and shell using, I've always the feeling that they fired the first shell available, even firing at infantry which is a bit effective, as even OFP's Sabots have interesting indirect damage and range values. So it seems that a shell is just a shell, whatever its purpose.

I'll stick with these values for armorstructural at the moment:

1 = soft skinned (car)

1.5 = light armor (BMP)

2 = MBT armor (T72m1)

2.75 = modern composite/ERA armor (M1A2)

My opinion about armorstructural :

- about soft skinned vehicles, I wonder if we shouldn't keep the old value, or maybe the vehicle could explose far before its crew (4-6 5.56mm and Baoum !!). Otherwise on the side, maybe if we lower its armorstructural value, we should increase its armor value ?

- armorstructural value could be modified through different equipments inside the tanks (thus requiring a lot of research, bu with all the brains in this forum,I don't think it'll be impossible ) =>

=> antispalling liner

=> ammunition protection : None, Partial, Full

=> antifire systems : None, Manual, Automatic, Automatic Halon (for crewbay and/or engine)

=> engine type : Petrol (for old tanks), Diesel, Gas Turbine (Vulnerability level unknown)

=> turret power control : manual, hydraulic (hydraulic fluids are highly flammable), electro-hydraullic, electric

Others modifiers :

- Rate of fire : Should we take into account static or moving ? I fear that reloading manually a cannon with a heavy round at full speed off-road isn't so easy and lower the theorical spped of loading... =>

=> Manual loader

=> Manual loader with two-pieces ammunition

=> Loading support (I thought about the Merkava, but maybe its "revolving clip" could be considered as an automatic loader ??)

=> Automatic loader

So again proposal, this time with some numbers for better example:

-normal, steel armour would be armourstructural=1.0

-1st gen. laminated armour would be 2.0 (as in RHS T64s)

-same laminated armour with additional 1st. gen ERA would be 3.0, with gen. 1.5 ERA =3.5, and 2nd gen. heavy ERA =4.0

-Chobham and others laminated armours would have 4.0-4.5, Chobham 2 =5.0-6.0

I find this interesting, and more if applying modifiers for other equipments.

I'll add when I wrote Combat Weight (tons) x10 or Best CE Armor value = armor, I was thinking about old MBT using sttel armor, like T-55/62, AMX-30, Leopard 1,... It would depend on the tank armor type and levels.

If we used the heavy armor figure for the ARMOR value in the cpp, sometimes, it could be ridiculously low. For exemple, a T-55 with only 203 points of ARMOR.

On the other side, a T-55 weighting 37 tons would have 370 ARMOR points (a bit better than light AFVs), and with localized armor values (203 for Turret, 198 for Hull), these parts would could be put out of commission early before the tank explosion.

In the same time, for tanks with higher armor values than the combat weight x10, we should take the best armor value for ARMOR. So we take the best figures.

[Arne 0]

You may find this useful in your discussion:

http://www.team-yankee.net/download/AboutArmour.zip

http://www.team-yankee.net/download/bfh.pdf

bye, Arne

[TermiPete 0]

Thanks Arne - some good information there!

It is so nice to find another sad-sack armour spreadsheeter out there!

Interesting mod project - how are things coming along?

Have you or your team got any views on managing armour and damage values in OFP?

Cheers

TP

[Arne 0]

Hi TermiPete,

I'm glad to give you a helping hand

Quote[/b] ]Have you or your team got any views on managing armour and damage values in OFP?

Unfortunately I'm just an amateur in addon making, so I better let the pros decide on the armor topic.

Our island is progressing, area for the first scene is almost complete (done by another member).

I'm currently working on my baby M88A1. 1st ResLOD ist done and I'm now texturing it. Parallel work is done on some field-fortifications, and then I'm going to retexture KMARNS Infantry for 1985 Bundeswehr units - those prior to Fleckentarn camo.

As soon as Jens (island maker) has tested the bridge-pack, we'll release it.

cu,

Arne

BTW: if a DKM member is reading this: can you contact me please?

BTW2: has anyone the RHA values for M88A1/A2 HERCULES?

[miles teg 1]

I'm glad alot of you like the armor values on the LoBo tanks. Yeah we spent alot of time debating this issue back and forth and making lots of modifications to the armor system in order to try and balance realism with OFP game engine limitations.

It also enhances gameplay by making tank battles last a little longer and with crew often bailing out. But they still explode once in awhile also and often the crew when they do bail, are seriously injured.

Another thing that is fairly realistic is the number of RPG's required to destroy or disable the heavy Egyptian and Israeli tanks. Just as in real life, modern tanks can take an enormous amount of punishment from RPG attacks.

Unfortunately in OFP you can not simulate such things as rooftop attacks (which M1 tanks are highly vulnerable to) and rear attacks to the engine compartment.

But guaranteed if you stick enough AT infantry guys on a map they will tear up the Merkavas.

We also now have an Iranian RA'AD-T tandem warhead variant of the AT-3 Sagger that is used by Egypt and which in our mod also poses a significant threat to our Merkavas if fired in mass at the tanks.

At any rate, overall I think our armor values make missions alot more challenging and a bit more realistic overall and I hope that this common armor value system is something similar to our armor values. I would definitely give it a big thumbs up.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Evil Weasel 0]

Would it be possible to run a fairly simple script from the Hit eventhandler. Obviousley this would need a changed config. The ECP blood adddon uses EH Hit to work out the angle between the unit hit and the firer, in their case to decide which way to spray the blood. You could apply this to tanks so that if the hit occurred from the rear arc of the tank you would increase the damage done, perhaps by adding another 50% of the damage that has already been caused. You could even work out the the angle to the vertical that the hit came from, giving a good indication as to whether it hit the weak top armour. Again you could add extra damage to the tank to reflect this.

I don't know whether this a feasible idea, because I'm no scripter, but I how that it might provide some food for thought.

[Thunderbird 0]

This thread's very interessting , I currently work on 3 projects at the same time of which the purpose

of the use of military truths values is, on the level of the impacts,

the speed of the explosions and their intensities, there are many

informations here which can be usable in a good direction... so let Continue this debate,

[TermiPete 0]

Some good news - Hardrock from the ACES project (AirCraft Equipment Standard) has got in touch and is keen to cooperate with the CAVS initiative. Their project looks great - adding a third dimension to the 'OFP Standards initiative' - now there is excellent work underway on:

* MAAM - infantry weapons

* CAVS - land vehicle munitions and armour values

* ACES - aircraft munitions and technologies

Very promising!

@Evil Weasel:

A good idea - but my view currently is CAVS is about values and probably keeping clear of scripting and EH. (Plus I don't know how to do any of that stuff properly! :P ).

@Miles Teg:

I had another go with your armour on Friday and it does feel good. And the Israeli AT troops could cause huge problems for Egyptian M1s when in close. Can you explain to me your system for assigning Armourstructural values?

@Arne

Keep at it - sounds great! I hope you are intending to go MAAM/CAVS/ACES all the way!!

@TermiPete

Oops - that's me!

@SPQR

Good to see you back in again. Thanks for the run-down on ammo radius/damage - looks fine to me! Re Armorstructural - I would really appreciate if you and some others taking part in this discussion could load up the Lost Brothers equipment and testout their system, then let us know what you think. I'm conscious that introducing many variable into the calculation of armorstructural values might put add-on makers off.

Regarding reloading speed - i think we should just stick with the best ROF a wepaon can manage.

Re steel MBTs and IFVs and their armour levels etc - try the Lost Brothers and see what you think.

@Przezdzieblo

I see you have been trying Lobo and some config tweaks! Great So it is definitely looking like we should use higher ArmourS values.

We will have to ponder on AP damage multipliers!

TP

[Arne 0]

@TermiPete:

I was texturing the M88 till 4am last night...

And I will set a bookmark on this discussion though I don't understand half of what you people talk about...

Quote[/b] ]I'm conscious that introducing many variable into the calculation of armorstructural values might put add-on makers off.

I wouldn't be afraid of that, unless it's not explained in detail.

And an image tells me more than 1000 words.

And let it check by someone who's not a pro and see if he understands it.

bye, Arne

[TermiPete 0]

Some interesting news today from Phaeden [uSMC] re WGL v.5!

"I will release BETA by tomorrow (unless something drastic happens). "

Lots of good new stuff - plus at least one important tweak of interest to us: "vehicles are stronger against small arms".

I suspect this will be done through Armourstructural.

TP

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Once again.

CE

DIRDMG : PEN

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 10

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 50

CE-MP

DIRDMG : PEN

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 6

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 25

HE

DIRDMG : Calibre / 2.5

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 5

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 10

I tried those formula (for various Polish ammo) and found that it needs some upgrades.

Example I:

new polish rocket grenade for RPG-7W, PG-7MT - pen.: 500 + ERA, weight: 3 kg, diameter: 95 mm, muzzle velocity: 100 m/s, range: 300 m

Counting with formula above:

DIRDMG : 700

INDIRDMG : 9.5

INDIRDMG RNG : 2

DIRMDG = 700 because I add 200 mm RHAe for tandem warhead. Probably those kind of addition wold be 150-250 mm RHAe.

Results: I found last - INDIRDMG RNG value too low.

Example II:

new polish rocket grenade for RPG-7W, OG-7ME - pen.: unknown, weight: 1.9 kg, diameter: 40 mm, muzzle velocity: 120 m/s, range: 1100 m

Counting with formula above:

DIRDMG : 16

INDIRDMG : 8

INDIRDMG RNG : 4

Results: I found last value - INDIRDMG RNG too low.

Example III:

new polish rocket grenade for RPG-7W, PG-7OD - pen.: unknown, weight: 2.65 kg, diameter: 70 mm, muzzle velocity: 85 m/s, range: 1100 m

Counting with formula above:

DIRDMG : 28

INDIRDMG : 14

INDIRDMG RNG : 7

Results: I found last value - INDIRDMG RNG too low.  

So I think way of counting dammage range should be changed. I have not exact propositions (new formula looking like SPQR`s), but for OG-7ME probably better wold be INDIRDMG RNG value ~10-15 and ~15-20 for heavier PG-7OD.

Rounds like PG-7OD have some penetration abillities. Mentioned grenade could pierce 200-300 mm concrete wall, which is about 3-5 mm of good armour plate. Changing those values to RHAe leads probably to nowhere... But I think it is good idea to make this kind of APERS and anti-buliding rounds strong enough to destroy light vehicle (unarmoured jeep) with instant kill of crew and to severly dammage heavier truck (so if there would be no another way probably the only choice would be increasing DIRDMG values even in non-AT projectiles).

Using only caliber for INDIRDMG and INDIRDMG RNG values needs some change. For example lets say we have three different projectiles, all with diameter: 40 mm - OG-7ME RPG-7W rocket grenade, GNPO (rifle grenade, MP - low pen. ~80 mm RHAe plus splinters) and 40 mm ammo for Pallad family granade lunchers. First round weights 1.9 kg, second about 0.6 kg, third circa 0.2 kg. So we can expect that instead of same calibre power of explosion of those three different projectiles would be... different. And more, HE effect of striking Maverick would be bigger than TOW or Hellfire, even if diameters are similar.

Of course projectile weight is not same value that warhead weight. But probably those first value is easier to be found and used by configmakers.

And now there is a question... what now Projectile values are not same thing as armour values, but both systems should be developed together if any idea of CAVS would survive. So I hope those questions and ideas above are not last margin of that what CAVS-thinking people should do. I think there is need for another formula, using mass/calibre values for counting OFP values.

SPQRs ideas about armorstructural (`AS`) values have... value. As HP and part_of_tank_armor values can simulate tanks armour thickness `AS` could help to simulate vehicle survivability without some complicated scripts.

Do `AS` works in all vehicles classes? I tried to set this value to prevent Polish APC Rosomak (Wolverine, Polish version of Finnish 8 x 8 Patria AMV; soon in Operation Carrot) to be destroyed after one PG-7 (or  multipurpose PG-7KO, both with pen.: ~260 mm RHAe) hit. Rosomak is not as heavy as AMV (22 tons compared to 26 tons) and it`s armour can withstand only 14.5 mm rounds from front. But, as I suppose, new antifire systems (Deugra, automatic, maybe Halon - I am not 100% sure) in this one of the newest worlds APCs can make it possible to survive one old PG-7. I found that `AS`=2 or 4 give no help, and the only way to make that task is by increasing HP from 220 (SPQR`s  22tons * 10) to about 250. OTOH I did not want to increase `AS` value in somekind "cosmic" way (as I believe LoBo did ) and choosed `AS`=4 as the highest value for APC.

So, did I miss something and made mistake when making a config with `AS` value or in wheeled vehicles class it just do not work?

One more thing anout LoBo work in CAVS-thinking category - I think that some of `AS` values are too high. I know that playability was the most important there and it is all for long and dramatic tank battles. But even if I shall agree that Merkava family tanks gives crews level of protection higher than another tanks, `AS`=16 and armorTurretTop=1.5 (with HP=1300) seems... strange. There is no way to make tank equal protection from all sides (without some complicated APS or very new technologies of NERA or electromagnetic armour). So sides of new Merkavas probably could protect from RPG rounds and even some ATGMs (more advanced than Malutkas, lets say more than 600-800 mm RHAe, which is probably much more better result than in Abrams or Challenger 2)... but not better rounds. One more thing - roof. As you can see on Merkava 3 photo new Israeli tanks have some additional plates

http://www.eurofoto.no/show_im....&dy=435

http://www.eurofoto.no/show_im....&dy=483

about 4-6 cm thick, layed on 4-5 cm roof

http://www.eurofoto.no/show_im....&dy=483

And it is rather not possible that it could stop any top attack ATGM or even RPG hit (with 90o angle), but probably is enough to deal with RPG hit at lower angle. So mentioned before topturret armour value look "cosmic".

I have great respect for LoBo team work and I think that their idea of increasing tanks values is good, but values are too high. In CAVS there is need to find way of computing `AS` values...

[SPQR 0]

Sorry for answering so late, much work and learning about armoured warfare in Leclerc MBT simultors (gave us many ideas ).

About WGL’s AFV vulnerability and VBL history (just far from my memory) :

Before I worked on the VBL beta, it used to have such a low Armor value that even Ais fired upon it with their assault rifles. However, as the real VBL gives protection from average 7.62mm fired at 100 meters, our VBL protection level was far from real one’s. It was rather ridiculous to be fired upon by AIs at 300 metres far away. Moreover, we discovered that when slightly increasing the Armor value, AIs stopped using ther rifles. Now only 12.7mm MG, RPG, grenades and sometimes LMG are used against the VBL. But WGL’s AFV Armor values are so low (45 for BMP-1/2 in WGL 4.0) that AIs use every weapons in hand against them (don’t try with pistols )

CE Warheads :

It’s obvious that the ammo caliber doesn’t entirely define damages amount. The ammo kind and the weight of its warhead count a lot. I defined low indirect damage in order to have more antipersonnal effect that the BIS overall destruction effect done to medium to heavy armored vehicles. There is surely a better medium way.

From several documents, I use to add 100mm to the piercing effect of a tandem HEAT warhead. I have doubts in a widely used first warhead’s 150-250mm piercing effect, as it’s main role is to ignite the ERA and not really give a helping hand in the piercieng effect. However, as I lack exhaustive information about this problem, I’m sure there’s some exceptions... like the 3BK31 (?) with its triple HEAT charge (still its first charge is still small).

HEAT and light AFV :

OFP’s Attacks and Armor use the Hit Point system, which is far from what can happen in reality. Giving a light AFV the capacity to survive to a RPG hit means it’s Armor could reach the level of the less-protected MBT’s Armor  

Quote[/b] ] Ivory Coast - RPG rocket hit

These two very graphic pictures are photographs of the VAB armoured personnel carrier that was took a direct hit from an RPG-7 rocket. In the first picture, the entry hole can be seen, just above the lower left hand corner of the driver's access door. The deadly jet of molten metal that consequently was propelled to the interior of the vehicle severly wounded the driver, destroyed the steering wheel, penetrated the steel gear transfer box and came out the other side, burning the feet of the Chef de Groupe (the squad leader) who was standing up on his seat, manning the 12.7mm machine gun in the cupola.

...

No link given in order to protect soft-hearted personns

As Whisper described the functionning of AS :

Quote[/b] ] About armorStructural : you have different parts on an OFP tank, described in the hitHull, hitEngine, etc... part of the config.cpp. Each has its own "hitpoints". The tank also has a global "health point" value, set in the "armor" parameter in the config. Each localized hitPoints are calculated from the global armor, by multiplying it by the number found in the hitHull section under armorHull, armorEngine, etc...500 armor, 0.7 armorEngine means the "engine" selection in the hit LOD of the P3D model will have 500*0.7=250 hitpoints.

When hit, a tank will give damage to every part hit. If hit for 300 in Hull and Engine, hitHull and hitEngine will be reduced by 300 each. In addition, the global armor will be decreased by the sum of damages done to localized parts, divided by the armorStructural parameter. In my example,300 + 300 = 600, divided by 2 armorStructural = 300 hit to global armor.

When global armor reaches zero, the tank explodes.

When HitTracks reaches zero, the tank can't move.

When HitEngines reaches zero, the tank can't move.

When HitTurret reaches zero, tank can't fire, if I remember well, or bad things happen to the crew.

When HitGun reaches zero, gun is inoperative (blackened and aiming at ground)

When HitHull reaches zero, tank explodes after a few seconds

Currently, the direct damage values are so high that AS wouldn’t have, in my opinion much influence in hardening the light AFV. Just one hit in the Hull, and the AFV will be immediatly wrecked.

One question to wonder about : How could AS versus Indirect damages be defined ?

One possible answer is the vehicle resistance versus shock effect (shockwaves) i.e. the AFV’s ability to sustain the blow of explosive impacts. As HEAT and HESH rounds have an explosive component KE rounds don’t have, maybe could we consider that a part of the damage effect of the HEAT/HESH will be indirect damage, thus able to be fairly countered by high AS values. So CE rounds damage calculation could be done with a chosen Dir/Indir damage ratio.

For exemple, with a 70%/30% ratio, and 300mm armor piercing effect, A hit would give DirDamage=210, and IndirDamage=90.

Good bye the limited explosive effect againt unarmored units, but AS could become an important figure defining the use of special armor and equipements.

We’ll also have to think about the indirect damage range : low for HEAT (would damage 2-3 armor zones), increased fo HESH (5-6).

I’ll add that passThrough=true/false could be used to isolate zones with damages can’t logically spread elsewhere : protected engine, turret with ammunition protection, main cannon (it’s the tube that is damaged, not the gun’s mantlet),...

On the other side, maybe KE round damages wouldn’t have anymore to be increased by such a high factor as 1.35.

Lost Brothers mod has done a great job, and maybe their high AS values aren’t overrated so much. The localized armor values, in my opinion, on the other side need more debating. After all, a Merkava 4 with a 1300 Armor and thus 1950 Turret armor and a 1625-1950 Front hull armor can sustain heavy damage from KE rounds, without AS having any clear effect in the MBT’s toughness.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Only one thing now...

HEAT and light AFV :

OFP’s Attacks and Armor use the Hit Point system, which is far from what can happen in reality. Giving a light AFV the capacity to survive to a RPG hit means it’s Armor could reach the level of the less-protected MBT’s Armor

I think there should be no danger here If we take "real" pen. values for PG-7like rounds and weight*10 for vehicle HPs, there is a chance to some realistic simulaton without raping rules. Against PG-7 (pen. 260) HP>230-250 would be enough to help vehicle to survive (heavy dammaged and probably with crew casualties).

[SPQR 0]

Quote[/b] ]When HitEngines reaches zero, the tank can't move.

...

When HitHull reaches zero, tank explodes after a few seconds

Still testing some figures (and at least my modified BMP-1 with a real cool low-flying flat trajectory AT3, and putting passthrough=false for some armor parts of tanks), I've discovered really different results :

When the hull was out of commission (on armor diagram, when the hull part is red), and if the engine wasn't also getting red, the vehicle didn't explode.

When the engine got red, the tank exploded.

For wheeled vehicles, there's no engine (for the OFrP VAB for example) but the armorfuel seems to act like the tank's engine (for explosion).

For example, the french OFrP VAB :

Currently, it has and ARMOR of 180, an armorstructural of 4, an armorBody=3.0 and armorFuel=1.4.

When passing on a BIS AT mine (right on it), the VAB is put out of commission, the crew wounded, but it explodes after 1-2 seconds (not enough to crawl away for the resulting explosion).

I modified some figures : armorBody=1.0 and armorFuel=4.4

The results are :

- when passing right above the AT mine, the VAB is put out of commision, nearly half of crew and passengers are hardly wounded (must crawl) but the VAB don't explode

- You need 2 AC58 rifle grenades (directdamage=350) to make the VAB explode. One BIS RPG (500 dir/150 indir), or Kegetys' RPG7 (450 dir/280 indir) is enough.

Clearly, it means that we can create wheeled AFVs of jeep class able a sustain a mine explosion (what the most modern ones are supposed to do) or a light/old RPG hit (correctly configurated RPG please) without having to give an outragous ARMOR value to the wheeled AFV).

Armorstructural can also be of great help against indirect damages.

Przezdzieblo, you can thus with more ease a stronger Rosomak, without giving it too much armor, and give more vulnerability to older APCs

[hellfish6 7]

Very interesting info, SPQR!

[SPQR 0]

Sure, for Bushfires' SADF mine-protected AFV, that'll be great. They truly need this protection  

But, they'll need some mass (created in the p3D ? ) to make the mines explode

[FireflyPL 0]

That's marvelous discovery SPQR !! Big breakthrough for CAVS.

[SPQR 0]

Another breakthrough

A friend of mine, Xela89 who tested my BMP-1 which has an ARMOR of 150 told me that BIS M2 AIs didn't fired upon it while OFrP's M2 (not released yet) did...

One major difference is that while BIS M2 does 13 direct damage points, OFrP M2 does 16.

Would there be a link between the Armor, the damage value of weapons and AIs' behaviour ?

After testing against BIS weapons, and using Armor values ranging from 50 to 10,000, here is the rule :

AIs don't engage an enemy unit having an armor value more than tenfold the direct damage value they can fire.

For exemple, against a 90 point of Armor vehicle, AIs can't use M16 (dirdamage 9) but can use G36 (dmg 10)

There are a few exceptions, like M60 & PK (dmg 8) which don't fire on a 70 armor vehicle.

LAW soldiers (500/150) don't fire on a 5000 armor vehicle

M1A1 (700) don't fire on big guys (only tested 5000 and 10,000 ) having 10,000.

The AI's behaviour only depends on the global value and not corrected ones. Armor structural hasn't also influence.

For exemple, a BMP-1 with armor 80, structural 12, armorhull 3 and armor turret 1.8 is attacked in the same manner than a BMP-1 with armor 80, structural 2, armorhull 1 and armorturret 0.8 (BIS standard).

That's something very useful in creating light AFV, using an armor depending on the real protection value (7.62mm, 12.7mm,...etc), while localized parts can be strengthened against more powerful attacks (20-30mm) and landmines.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Very interesting stuff!

MfG Lee

[sanctuary 19]

But in that case why the machinegunners with PK (Bullet7_6 damage 8) open fire on UH60 (armor 60) while the other units with AK74 (BulletSingle damage 9 ) do not ?

There must be another value with the armor one playing in the background

EDIT

Maybe it is the airLock=1 for the Bullet7_6 used by the PK, as the AK74 BulletSingle use airLock=0 from the inherited Default

[xela89 0]

Yes, it is the airlock=1

[sanctuary 19]

Thanks for the answer,

Good to learn a bit more how OFP is working inside.

[cornhelium 0]

Hi there,

With JAM3 Release Candidate edging ever closer, I'm wondering if anybody has suggestions for AT round values, particularly values that would be in line with the CAVs project.

Currently the values are:

M136 ("Anti-Tank" version):

hit=450;

indirectHit=280;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

M136 ("Anti-Aircraft" version):

hit=125;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

M136 ("Anti-Personnel" version):

hit=450;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

M136 ("All" version):

hit=450;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

------------------------------------

M72 ("Anti-Tank" version):

hit=300;

indirectHit=280;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

M72 ("Anti-Aircraft" version):

hit=125;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

M72 ("Anti_Personnel" version):

hit=300;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

M72 ("All" version):

hit=300;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

--------------------------------

RPG (PG7VR Anti-Armour):

hit=450;

indirectHit=280;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

RPG (PG-7 "Anti-Aircraft" version):

hit=125;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

RPG (OG-7 "Anti-Personnel" version):

hit=450;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

RPG (PG-7 "All" version):

hit=450;

indirectHit=75;

indirectHitRange=3.100000;

==============================

Comments:

* It's strange how the "AT" versions of the M136 and M72 have larger indirect hit values, whereas you would expect the "AP"/"AA"/"ALL" variants to have higher indirect damage to simulate area effect. One would expect a dedicated AT shot to have higher hit values and lower indirect hit values, but BAS may have been compensating for the AI's inability to get a direct hit on moving tanks    Any thoughts?

* Any input from the CAVs team would be especially appreciated. Fox2 has made some intelligent suggestions for RPG values which I will follow, but if I could square those with the kind of values the CAVs guys are using, that would be perfect.

Cheers mates,

CH

[Przezdzieblo 0]

CAVS program is still only discussion and ideas. But (and so )few ideas:

RPG (PG7VR Anti-Armour):

750 seem to be near real penetration values of this heavy AT projectile. Similar Polish round, also with tandem warhead, weights 3 kg and could do 500 mm RHAe protected by ERA. There is hard to tell if any www sources gives PG7VR penetration value + those anti-ERA capability in one number, or there is need to add something to those 750 mm RHAe. Let say we leave those value, without adding anything. SPQR proposed to split exact penetration numbers for DIRDMG and INDIRDMG. In case of AT-only warheads splinters and blast effect is not as big as in case of multipurpose warheads. So maybe 90% + 10%?

Hit=675;

indirectHit=75; it have to be enough to kill a soldier and stop a car - 75 is even overkill

indirectHitRange=~7; heavy, 4,5 kg round, cal. 105 mm. INDIRDMG RNG value just from head, if someone finds any formula, it would be very helpful.

With 90% direct and 10% indirect hit values those second would be still overkill against "soft" targets. So maybe 95%/5%? INDIRDMG=40 with range of 150% of mass still can masacre infantry. If so, DIRDMG=715 INDIRDMG=40 and INDIRDMG RNG=7

RPG (OG-7 "Anti-Personnel" version):

Similar Polish round probably could penetrate about ~20 cm of concrete wall or ~30 cm brick wall (which is equivalent of less than 1.5 cm armour plate or 3 cm normal steel) and then explode, so OG-7 probably also can do it. Mass - ~2kg? There is a problem how to find DIRDMG value. Direct hit of OG-7 probably would have to eliminate a jeep (AFAIR BIS jeep HP=20), so there must be some high enough value.

hit=<20??; one more thing - probably mass and velocity have some influance on damages are taken by target

indirectHit=20??; enough to kill a man or dammage vehicle

indirectHitRange=10??; light round, but it`s task is to kill infantry, so range must be enough to sweep a squad. OTOH INDIRDMG range=20 seems to much for as light projectile. So maybe INDIRDMG RNG=500% of mass in case of antipersonnel warheads? Probably those formula would work as long as round would be light...

M136 ("Anti-Tank" version):

Real penetration value is about 450 mm RHAe: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/AT4.html

hit=405; 90% of real penetration or hit=425 95% of real penetration

indirectHit=45; 10% of real penetrationor indirecthit=25 5% of real penetration - enough to make infantry feel bad

indirectHitRange=~3;circa 2kg of AT-warhead, range must be lower than in case of APERS round like OG-7. But those range=3 seems very, very low, =5 would work better - but no formula and counting in it

M72 ("Anti-Tank" version):

hit=270 (or =285);

indirectHit=30 (or =15);

indirectHitRange=...; again problem with good value. LAW is not APERS weapon, but range=2 seem to low. Any idea how to make LAW and AT136 little more lethal against soft targets without changing heavier rounds into A-bombs?

I do not really get those JAM ALL, AA or AT types of ammo. Is it just a trick to force AI to shoot at human or air targets with their RPGs?

[TermiPete 0]

Hiya Keenbeans

I've had to back off from OFP for some time now as I've needed to focus on work and kiddies. For me CAVS is on hold as I just can't put the time into it that I'd like to.

Looks like you guys have made some interesting progress - as usual SPQR is a mine of information!!

With my CAVS work I was leaning towards using real CE penetration values for infantry AT weapons. This seemed to work OK in combination with good AS values.

So my 2c is go with real CE for AT versions - wrapping my head around AA/AP versions is more than I can do at the moment.

I will come back to CAVS in the near future (if only because I am armourhead sadsack).

Has anyone posted a decent playable config?

TP